Obviously I was talking about scientists not giving up the search.
Sorry pal, I’m not playing this game.
1 Like
You can’t discuss what they taught without a consideration of their socio-historical context. That context informs the concepts accessible to them and their audience, and also informs the meaning of their language and actions. This is standard historico-critical practice.
That doesn’t surprise me, but that’s ok because I’m not trying to convince you to change your mind. Meanwhile, let me know as soon as you find someone possessed by a demon. I’m sure we’d all like to see what that looks like.
It will become clear presently. How many of the 40,000 or so people put to death for witchcraft, genuinely made a pact with the devil, or genuinely exercised magical powers, or genuinely injured people with curses?
Hi @Tony, I finally got back to your post 
.
I’ve been saying from the very beginning that I think demonic possession can be causally involved in (neurological) diseases and mental illnesses. For example, see the account in the Mark 9:17-27 on the boy that appears to suffer from epilepsy:
17 And someone from the crowd answered him, “Teacher, I brought my son to you, for he has a spirit that makes him mute. 18 And whenever it seizes him, it throws him down, and he foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid. So I asked your disciples to cast it out, and they were not able.” 19 And he answered them, “O faithless generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him to me.” 20 And they brought the boy to him. And when the spirit saw him, immediately it convulsed the boy, and he fell on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the mouth. 21 And Jesus asked his father, “How long has this been happening to him?” And he said, “From childhood. 22 And it has often cast him into fire and into water, to destroy him. But if you can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.” 23 And Jesus said to him, “‘If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes.” 24 Immediately the father of the child cried out[d] and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!” 25 And when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “You mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.” 26 And after crying out and convulsing him terribly, it came out, and the boy was like a corpse, so that most of them said, “He is dead.” 27 But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him up, and he arose.
All of this shouldn’t stop us from combining a form of “methodological naturalism” (i.e., medical care) with faithful prayer in our attempts to treat those problems. For me, personality disorders are the same, although there are usually no medical means to treat them. If you can help improve people’s lives by some direct means, that’s a good thing to do. But often we have to pray for spiritual support in such battles.
I am aware of the difference between idealism and realism. And I’m a realist, because I think that spiritual forces extend way (way!) beyond the thought realm. If we stop believing in demons, it does not make them non-existent. It just makes us blind to their influences. The Scriptures and experiential accounts of Christians and non-believers all over the world support that position as far as I can see.
Of course, Jesus also taught the power of belief in affecting reality. So there is some truth in your ideas that belief affects realities. But it’s not the whole truth.
I’m glad you picked up that quote from Jonathan, because I believe it shows the difference between our positions very well. In my opinion, demons and their influences will exist anyway, so being aware of them actually helps in the battle. However, Satan cares less about people who are already “in his pocket”. So, Satan’s pocket is a very safe place if you want to avoid the heat of the battle, but only because you’re being deceived by him. In the cosmic battle between God and Satan, this approach will not help the good guys at all. That’s more a kind of ostrich policy, putting your head in the sand. “Ignorance is bliss.”
For me, God is a transcendent being. So He Himself does not “evolve” in time, because He created time Himself. His personhood and character are eternal. What does evolve, however, is God’s relationship with mankind. So I think your position here also has some truth in it, but it’s only part of the truth.
I suppose I should have specified my claim more precisely. I meant to say that “Spiritual influences beyond those of humans would not exist without demons, angels, or God.”
So the types of spiritual interaction that are most easily distinguished are those between human beings (actually, we’re having such interaction right now, on the Forum ). But there are spiritual entities beyond the human being, and those also have an influence on us. We are unique, being both natural and spiritual and we are the crown of God’s Creation. It is therefore to be expected that the cosmic battle for Creation is enacted largely through us: we are the battleground itself. God and Satan are in a constant dispute over us, humans with free will.
So once again, I believe your position has truth in it (humans constitute an essential part of spiritual influences in Creation and evil is often enacted in and through human beings). However, there is a bigger picture involved in which we human beings are the battleground of enmity between God and Satan.
But the problem here is that, with respect, this is indeed in your opinion. You’re making claims about satan, and how he thinks, and what he does, on the basis of literally no evidence at all. This is simply an ad hoc attempt at explaining why only people who believe in demons, worry about demons and are likely to be (apparently), afflicted by demons.
During the seventeenth century, Inquisitor Alonso de Salazar Frias made the extremely astute observation that “There were neither witches nor bewitched until they were talked and written about”. You know how he combated witches? He issued an Edict of Silence which forbade people to discuss witches and witchcraft in public. Suspicions of witches and witchcraft were to be reported in private to a commissioner. The result? A staggering drop in reports of witches and witchcraft, and a complete end of the witch hunt craze in every era in which he issued the Edict.
The more people are encouraged to believe in witches, satan, and demons, the more they will attribute to them.
I won’t deny that people have wrongly applied the belief in witches, satan, demons (and God, for that matter) to a variety of things and have come to harmful conclusions. But that’s not a reason to deny their existence. Some atheists deny God’s existence for the same reason.
As for my phrasing “in my opinion”, I’m just being fair. This is a Forum for discussing opinions. I’m presenting my views here with the disclaimer that it’s my personal stance, but I’m also clear on my reasonings behind it. It makes this place a warmer environment, expressing my respect that another person may have come to different conclusions. It sure would be more enjoyable to converse with you, Jonathan, if you would provide more of such disclaimers now and then.
Here my position could be compared to my position on demons. Whether you yourself acknowledge that your statements are opinions or not, that does not stop them from being opinions 
.
I mentioned before that my statements on the plans of Satan are extremely speculative. I don’t consider it ad hoc because it fits well with the overarching theme of a cosmic battle between God and Satan.
1 Like
I agree it’s not a reason to deny their existence. But it is a reason to distrust those who speak so dogmatically about witches, satan, and demons. Until I
I realise that. But it was just your opinion. It wasn’t evidence based. It was, as you say, “extremely speculative”. I would rather put my trust elsewhere.
And so am I, and I’ve made it clear that my views are a minority position at best, both in the Christian community and in the literature. I’ve also pointed out where my views are not simply my own, but have support from the relevant scholarly literature. So while they are my personal views, they are not without evidence or support; they are not simply my opinion, and most importantly they are not extremely speculative.
My position on satan and demons is certainly an opinion. But it is an opinion which is based on evidence, both empirical and exegetical, and which has support in the literature. I don’t try to support my own opinions by simply piling up unsubstantiated claims. As soon as you or I retreat to speculation in support of our case, our case is weakened. That’s why I would rather say “I don’t know” or “I can’t explain that” than appeal to personal speculation.
Whether or not you think it “fits well”, it’s ad hoc simply by virtue of being an argument created to support a previous argument. It’s like what Mormons do to try and support the Book of Mormon. They can always give you an other explanation or argument as to why the archaeology doesn’t support them, or why the Book of Mormon uses KJV English, or why the witnesses to the “golden plates” don’t agree.
If you asked a Mormon to prove to you that satan is Jesus’ brother, and they gave you all the reasons why they believe this and explain how it all “fits together” in their point of view, but failed to provide an actual evidence from any reliable source, would you find them convincing? They can make up arguments all day. But all they’re doing is simply pilling up unsubstantiated arguments, to try and support previously unsubstantiated arguments. You can cut through this chaff simply by asking them the source of their information, and then you’ll find they don’t have any, they’re just making ad hoc arguments.
Please dispense with such false claims. They don’t reflect well on you, and they contribute nothing to the discussion. Once again you’re trying to talk about the person rather than the issue. I have directed you to the relevant socio-historical data, with which you claim to be familiar. I have explained the hermeneutical approach I’m taking, with which you claim to be familiar. So if I’m pointing to the wrong data, or using the wrong hermeneutical approach, or if there’s a flaw in the hermeneutical approach, then demonstrate it.
But making “I know more than you” noises, and hinting vaguely that there’s something wrong with the approach I’m taking without actually demonstrating it, isn’t getting you anywhere. It just looks like you’re dropping the names of scholars and methods without actually being able to exhibit actual knowledge about them. This is exactly the same kind of behaviour we typically see from the people who oppose evolution. They cite Popper on falsifiability and evolution, but can’t even explain falsifiability. They cite Feyerabend on the definition of science, but don’t know anything about epistemological anarchism. They cite Kuhn on paradigm shifts, but can’t explain how this demonstrates evolution isn’t valid. They’re just throwing around words and names as if mere reference to them will do all the work. Scratch the surface and all you find is more hand-waving, no informed arguments.
So you’re completely open to the idea that hundreds of thousands of Christians, including many highly educated and intelligent theologians, could have been completely wrong about a theological issue for centuries, resulting in hideous injustice for tens of thousands of people. Great, so am I. There’s a pretty important lesson here.
It’s amazing how many people I meet who are convinced of the existence of demons and demonic activity, but who can never actually point to any.
Just like others here, basing themselves, it seems, on a reductionist and materialist understanding of the world, have decided a priori that evolution is a fact. Right? Step one in avoiding the issue under discussion; make claims about what someone appears to have based their arguments on, instead of addressing the evidence they have explicitly based their arguments on. You can collect your straw man at the counter on your left.
Thank you. So the argument is not flawed.
When you have some evidence of this, please provide it. Otherwise all you have is “What if?”, which gets us nowhere.
No, because there was indisputable evidence of a Communist Party sympathetic to Soviet interests, and indisputable evidence for Soviet spy activity in North America. Hard evidence, well documented. Totally unlike the case of demons. That’s precisely why I chose the European witch hunts as a proper analogy.
So how would you have identified the real witches in Early Modern Europe? The ones who really made a pact with satan, who really exercised magical powers, who really injured people with curses?
I will mention once again that we don’t find any of this in the New Testament. Either you believe what you think the New Testament says about demons, or you don’t. But flipping back and forth like this makes it look like you don’t.
1 Like
I didn’t say that prayer is the same as giving up the search for a natural explanation. People pray for all sorts of things concerning the health of loved ones, including money for medical procedures, guidance for doctors and surgeons, healing, etc.
And it is researchers who search for cures for disease, etc. They are the ones who (hopefully) don’t give up and resort to demonic explanations.
But do tell me the circumstances when you pray about demons and how you determine that such an approach is the right one.
2 Likes
The same could be said for zombies and white walkers.
How would the tools of science be used to examine demonic activity?
2 Likes
I haven’t been around anybody (as others here apparently have) in which this seemed like a possibility. So --no, no attempted exorcisms to report here. I do pray about a lot of things, and I guess I don’t fret too much over whether an affliction (if that is what I’m praying about on my own or somebody else’s behalf) is of a spiritual nature or a physical nature, or perhaps most likely: both. It’s all underneath God’s domain so I don’t think our (in)ability to name or label things scientifically is going to impede earnest prayer. I do agree with you that properly understanding any physical causes that are there to be understood is a good prerequisite to being able to address or pursue a physical solution.
I’m not sure where I stand yet (to the extent that it is even important) on the nature of demons. You and John seem to have a certainty towards cavalier dismissal of all such personified beings as being superstitious nonsense, and I’d be lying if I didn’t admit to having the same inclinations just because I’ve lived all my life in an environment that acculturates my mind towards scientific explanation. But I don’t share in your confident certainty that such Scientistic thinking is the final or even best word on reality --certainly not with its spiritual content. So I try to not check my skepticism at the door when entering into the “holy of holies” for self-appointed skeptics: the scientific methodologies themselves. So when others speak of experiences around those who are afflicted and speak of these things in very spiritual --even demonic terms, I listen.
My explanation of Satan having “demon-denialists in his pocket” was proposed as an example of an alternative that does not exclude other possibilities. I never presented it as an absolute proof of anything, but at the very least it agrees with available evidence. There are many other alternative explanations that I would be okay with. The problem that I have with your explanation, is that you dogmatically exclude the possibility of demonic influences, which dismisses all the available evidence of such occurrences.
You surely like to insist on evidence. Therefore, I want to quote one of your favorite scholars, just as @Eddie has already pointed out. Fengren presented his arguments with one extremely important qualification. This qualification is the one that you have refused to give until this point:
Fengren: “To say that no physical impairment is attributed in the Gospels to a demon flies in the face of the evidence.”
I have not seen you deal convincingly with any of the available evidence from the Gospels. Therefore, from where I stand, your view is indeed much, much more than “just an opinion”. Namely, it is an opinion that flies in the face of the evidence from the Gospels (given that we take the Gospel accounts as valid evidence) and many other eyewitness testimonies.
All that your quotations from scholarship have shown to me is that even those scholars who agree partly with you, do not go as far as to completely deny the fact that New Testament authors have attributed physical impairment to demons in particular cases. Therefore, given the quotes you have presented, the claim that your “dogmatic demon-denialist” position is represented in mainstream scholarly literature remains unproven (or simply untrue, if this is all you have). I think that does reduce your view to a “fringe view” according to your our own definition, just like the symbolic interpretation of the death of Jesus.
It also remains ironic that you seem to be proud of having an “evidence-based” opinion, while your opinion actually is the one that “flies in the face of the evidence”. Seriously, I’m still waiting for a consistent exegetical approach that arrives at your conclusions without throwing the authenticity of the Gospel accounts into the trash bin, so to speak. Jesus personally addressed demons while exorcizing them, how to make sense of that? If Jesus does not believe that demons possess people, why does He speak to them directly? I have repeated that point (and related points) many times, but I haven’t seen any actual response from you.
You seem to have an interesting way of examining evidence. When presented with the contradiction between your position and that of the scholars you quoted, you replied:
From this, I gather that as soon as a body of scholarship disagrees with you, it’s all the fault of their confessional ties. As soon as parts of their reasoning somewhat agree with yours, those parts are hailed as support. I honestly don’t see how this will give you an unbiased view of the “evidence”. People are not victims of whatever their “confessions” have to offer. Maybe you could entertain the possibility that those scholars have decent support for subscribing to their particular confessions.
P.S. I love your references to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. I didn’t want to bring them into the discussion myself. JW actually believe they are “the only ones upholding the original intention of the Scriptures”, much like your persistent claims. However, Progressive Revelation, if applied properly, upholds the continuity with the teachings of Apostles and the Church. The Trinity answers that criterium. Without that continuity, you are prone to arrive at erroneous conclusions. For example, denying the possibility of demonic possession would represent a significant departure from continuity with the Apostles. JW and Mormons are also good examples of such deviations from historical Christianity. These groups also persistently deny the Trinity, i.e., like Christadelphians. One huge problem with such deviations is that they pretty much “fly in the face” of the collective testimony of millions of Christians throughout history. I suppose that topic is too tangential to the current discussion to pursue further here.
@Eddie, I found the small side-track discussion on the Holy Spirit a useful addition to the subject, because it shows something about how we think about spirits in general. For me, it has shown that Jonathan’s fervent defense of the demon-denialist position is actually part of a “package deal” that represents a deeper spiritual problem related to reductionism / naturalism. It can be useful for Christians who also deny the possibility of demonic possession (like, e.g., @beaglelady) to know more about the backgrounds of Jonathan’s “alternative” view on the spiritual world.
Please explain how disbelief in demon possession is Scientistic thinking.
1 Like
Scientism would be one source of such dismissal --but not the only one. So I didn’t mean to make it sound as if I know how scientistic or not you are in your thinking. Speaking for myself, though, even though I reject Scientism, it still has a pervasive cultural influence on me and pulls me toward skepticism in such matters. I obviously flat-out deny Scientism when it comes to belief in God’s Spirit, and even angelic beings. But my denial of the same Scientistic influences is not so strong when it comes to seeing demonic beings everywhere. There I tend to share in the cultural skepticism of so much of the western world. Probably not completely consistent of me … but there it is.